dippin

I don't think it's surprising, and if people weren't trying to focus only on this nonsense about half a sentence, I think there is enough about her to discuss, which should surprisingly create some real issues for the most partisan among us.

Despite being somewhat liberal, she seems to favor a very narrow reading of law and precedent, which in turn has led her to be overly deferential to the executive. Not surprisingly, in her most controversial cases (Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, Doninger v. Niehoff, Didden v. Village of Port Chester) she sided with Bush appointed judges on upholding certain acts.

irateplatypus

speaking about sotomayor's full statement in context:

of course it's racist. her statement acknowledges differences in race (and gender) and carves out a role for racial considerations in the judicial process. it's dishonest to say anything different.

but the left has never rejected racism. on the contrary, their ideology demands we treat people differently based on their race. they only reject racism that conflicts with their political and social goals.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

dippin

recognizing that there are differences between the experiences of different groups is not racism.

ratbastid

What's more, perpetuating differences between racial groups (or passively allowing them to perpetuate) IS racism, even when done under the guise of post-racism.